By any measure, Wednesday’s keynote was a blockbuster, in the range of the announcements and the degree of product advancement. Here are my initial thoughts:

Apple Watch

The Hermés custom watch face increases the odds we’ll see third party faces in the next one or, at most, two years.

New gold finish, available at the $349/99 Apple Watch Sport price point. Previously, the only gold-colored option was the (real gold) 18K Apple Watch Edition version, starting at $10,000. At $349/99, the new gold finish one will likely sell millions.

On the question of “are there too many SKUs?” When SKUs demand a duplication of R&D, or add complexity to marketing or the point of sale, they’re usually not worth it. In this case, the underlying product (R&D) is the same. And, to-date, the marketing and point of sale presentation appear to be effective. So, any complexity risk (including on the supply chain side) appears worth it. These SKUs add the color/finish/material variety that a personal product requires in order to become mainstream quickly. I’m not saying that will happen, but variety, in this case, may help.

I have little doubt that the product, the colors and bands, the distribution channels, and the marketing will drive high initial Apple Watch unit sales. The key issue, one where we might not have insight for several more months, remains sustained use: consumers continuing to use the Apple Watch, at the rate Apple would like.

iPad Pro

Apple continues its recently-intensified pursuit of professional users. And remember, “professional” doesn’t just mean “corporate office/desk” – it includes creative pros, field workers, etc.

Note how Apple won the hearts of consumers with the iPad, and is now ready to win the minds of businesses. Microsoft Surface essentially tried the reverse (in part to avoid challenging Apple head-on in the consumer market), but that approach hasn’t worked well.

It was promising, seeing new, more powerful iPad apps (e.g., for more intense video editing or design). I love Apple’s line “[for] tasks you’d never consider doing on a PC”. Huge multi-touchable space + Apple Pencil = more post-PC possibilities than ever before.

If you need the larger display, power, and stylus capability, the iPad Pro is worth the price delta over the iPad.

Microsoft was definitely on the right track with Surface/keyboard/stylus. But iPad Pro execution may be better (display size & responsiveness, pencil precision and utility, focused OS, many form-factor-optimized apps, TouchID, and raw CPU and GPU power). Let’s see.

About the stylus/pencil: it’s about precision cursor control; when a fingertip can’t be effective. And it’s optional.

Absent: mouse support and a file explorer – both useful if you’re a pro. iOS 9 has cursor control but, likely due to time constraints, that wasn’t demonstrated. The iOS 9 cursor control appears to work best when iPad is flat, or at least at a shallow angle. When it’s at the angle intended for keyboard use, it’s not clear how useful it would be.

By the way: this is the first instance of an iOS device charging another device (the Apple Pencil). More to come? (Imagine iPad charging the iPhone, if you’re in a pinch.)

iPad Line-up

Apple’s iPad line-up is now fairly broad: iPad mini 2, iPad mini 4, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPad Pro. No doubt, the aim is to address as many consumers as possible, in terms of capability and price points. Will it make for a complex line-up, especially when consumers consider storage levels and price points? It’s possible.

Apple continues to use the Apple SIM (soft SIM) in the iPads. The question is, will they come to the iPhone?

iPhone

When expressed in monthly installment terms, the price delta between an iPhone and other phones is fairly small. That’s why the (US) shift to installment pricing hasn’t hurt iPhone unit sales (and may actually have helped).

Upgrade program: Appears to be US-only. For about $1 – $1.50 per day (depending on the model), consumers can upgrade their iPhone every 12 months.

The upgrade program “isn’t tied to a single carrier” (link). Apple is taking control of more of the buying experience and consumer relationship. It’s not eliminating the need for carriers, but it’s reducing their influence.

If a meaningful number of consumers sign up, this effectively shortens the iPhone upgrade cycle and also provides Apple with (trade-in) product that can reach lower price points (e.g. in emerging markets).

Android OEMs would likely love to offer a similar upgrade program (think of it as HW-as-a-service). For upgrade plans to work, however, a company needs loyal customers – not just the *mechanics* of a program. Apple has loyalty. Many OEMs don’t. The root cause: undifferentiated products and poor marketing.

Exciting to see progress with Mx co-processor. M9 is low power efficient enough to enable “Hey, Siri” to work even when iPhone is unplugged.

Co-processors (“sensor hubs”) are relatively new to mobile devices. They enable the sensors to operate in a low power way, while many of the remaining components idle to conserve power. In this case, the M9 is always listening for the trigger phrase “Hey Siri”, and when it hears it, it can power up additional parts of the iPhone to help it capture, relay, and respond to your request.

“Hey, Siri” is now likely to get used 100X more, providing Apple and developers more insight. That should create a virtuous cycle: more use -> better functionality & better 3rd party app support -> more use.

Live Photos: Genius. A very tasteful, straightforward, effortless way to increase the enjoyment you can get from a photo. And it’s the default mode. Very powerful. Some apps enable similar functionality. But who wants a separate app or a less certain format?

Apple’s drive to gain Android “switchers” continues: it’s launching an Android app to entice and enable Android consumers to make the jump.

No iPhone-5C-like model this year. Instead, the iPhone 5S is the lowest-price model. It also appears to be the last 4” iPhone. As I mentioned above, iPhones that are traded in as part of the upgrade program can now be re-sold at lower price points, reducing some of the need for an iPhone-5C-like model.

Apple TV

It’s not a hobby any more. It’s a platform. Apple has been telegraphing this shift for years, yet no competitor has launched anything of this caliber.

New OS and SDK: tvOS. Impacts of this are yet to be seen, and hold tremendous promise.

Why? Because, as Apple says, “Apps are the future of television”. I believe it. Apps and games will expand the purpose and audience reach of Apple TV, and the time spent using it.

Roku (nice company, nice products) pioneered apps and games, but Apple TV and the developers who’ll build for it have the ability to take things to a whole new level. Why? Combination of superior hardware, better OS/SDK, better developer base, and the ability to utilize iOS devices.

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: A box refresh is leverage for future OTT negotiations. US-only OTT concerns? Myopic.”

But after nearly a decade of research, Apple quietly shelved plans to make such a set more than a year ago, according to people familiar with the matter. […] Making a television is a tough sell. It’s a notoriously cutthroat industry that digests and commoditizes new technologies quickly, starting a margin-killing race to lower prices.

I don’t think the generic notion of commoditization is the central issue here. In fact, Apple thrives in three businesses that are already “commoditized”: smartphones, tablets, and computers.

Instead, the central issue is that, in televisions, much of the capability has been unbundled from the display. Who helped lead that trend? Many players, including Apple (Apple TV launched in 2007), Roku, Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu. And, more recently, Google, with Chromecast. But in another, very real, sense it started years ago with the cable companies and the cable box.

At a product level, Apple’s advantage comes from the integration of six elements:

Content / services

Apps – third party

Apps – native

Operating system

Computing hardware

Industrial design

With regard to viewing streamed video (the current and future form of most video) the top five elements now reside (mostly) in the set-top-box (Apple TV) or even in the cloud. It’s in thiscontext that Apple might have struggled to produce a television set that was meaningfully compelling and worth the effort. And it’s also in this context that Apple might, in contrast, grow the sales and profits of the Apple TV box.

Google-owned YouTube had a chance to beat Twitter’s Periscope and its biggest competitor, Meerkat, to market by somewhere in the ballpark of 8 years, but decided against the move due to the fact that a large portion of the company’s resources were engaged in fending off a Viacom lawsuit and creating the Content ID copyright detection system.

Live streaming, in hindsight, is an idea that was “just there for the taking”. But — only in the dead simple way that Periscope and Meerkat have implemented it. So simple: open the app, press “Record”. That creates a stream that anyone can watch. Mixed with Twitter / social networking, it’s at least a modest gold mine.

Back to the situation Beasley describes: On the face of it, the amount of “extra investment” Google would have needed is unclear. It may be – and I’m speculating – that Periscope and Meerkat pursued the minimum viable product (MVP), while Google may have seen complications / risk in going that route. Even if that’s the case, I can’t blame Google. Pursuing too many side projects is, in my terms “what lack of focus looks like”, and it’s by no means a foregone conclusion that live streaming is a long-term hit. It’s here to stay (I think) for sure, but value / scale is TBD. Of course, that’s also what disruption looks like at the start.